Iran Politics

Iran Politics.....................................................................................................................1
INC Shell.......................................................................................................................2
Uniqueness Deal Happening Now/Obama stalling Congress......................................................4
Uniqueness Deal Happening Now/Obama stalling Congress......................................................5
Uniqueness Deal Happening Now/Obama stalling Congress......................................................6
Uniqueness Deal Happening Now/Obama stalling Congress......................................................7
2NC Impact Extension.....................................................................................................8
2NC Israel Strike Impact Scenario......................................................................................9
2NC Terrorism Impact Scenario.......................................................................................11
2NC Link Extension.....................................................................................................12
2NC Link/Solvency Roll-back card...................................................................................13
PC Key to stop Sanctions..................................................................................................14
AT: Sanctions wont kill talks............................................................................................16
AT: Sanctions Inevitable...................................................................................................17
AT: Iran not serious/will kill deal........................................................................................18
AT: Right to Enrich will kill deal........................................................................................19
AT: Negotiations Fail.......................................................................................................20
AT: Agenda Overload......................................................................................................21
AT: Sanctions lifting Bad will give Iran too much $$.............................................................22
AFF Non Unique Sanctions will increase now.................................................................23
AFF Obama no PC.......................................................................................................24
AFF Obama no PC.......................................................................................................25
AFF Turn Removing sanctions = Iran econ boost...............................................................26
AFF Sanctions will not happen until after talks anyway..........................................................27

INC Shell
1). Talks will succeed now only looming impediment is congressional sanctions Obama is using
all his PC to thwart new sanctions and it is working. Talks solve Iran prolif.
Reuters, 11/16/13 ('Quite possible' Iran, powers can reach nuclear deal next week: U.S. official; By
Lesley Wroughton; Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:21am EST; http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/16/us-irannuclear-usa-idUSBRE9AF00I20131116)
(Reuters) - Major powers and Iran are getting closer to an initial agreement to curb Iran's nuclear program, a senior U.S.
official said on Friday, adding it is "quite possible" a deal could be reached when negotiators meet November 20-22 in Geneva.
"For the first time in nearly a decade we are getting close to a first-step ... that would stop the Iranian nuclear program from
advancing and roll it back in key areas," the official told reporters.
"I don't know if we will reach an agreement. I think it is quite possible that we can, but there are still tough issues to negotiate,"
said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The official said EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif were to meet on
November 20 in Geneva. They will be joined later the same day by a wider group known as the P5+1 comprising Britain,
China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States. The talks are likely to last through November 22, the official added.
The talks will seek to finalize an interim deal to allow time to negotiate a comprehensive, permanent agreement with Iran that
would end a 10-year deadlock and provide assurances to the six powers that its atomic program would not produce bombs.
Iran has denied that it is seeking the capability to produce atomic weapons and insists its nuclear ambitions are limited to the
peaceful generation of electricity and other civilian uses.
Negotiations last week in Geneva ended without an agreement, although the sides appeared to be close to a deal that would
defuse their standoff over the nuclear program.
U.S. President Barack Obama has urged skeptical U.S. lawmakers not to impose new sanctions on Iran while negotiations are
ongoing and called for a pause in U.S. sanctions to see if diplomacy can work.
ALIGNED WITH WHITE HOUSE APPROACH
In addition to lobbying lawmakers, the White House this week also reached out to progressive groups supportive of diplomacy
with Iran to make sure they stay aligned with the Obama administration's approach, according to a source close to the matter.
Senior administration officials told supporters that they are guardedly optimistic about reaching an interim deal with Iran in
Geneva and that the P5+1, including the French, are ready to present a unified position there, the source said.
The senior U.S. official who met with reporters Friday said that published estimates of direct sanctions relief being offered
under a preliminary deal - which have ranged from $15 billion to $50 billion - were "wildly exaggerated."
"It is way south of all of that and quite frankly it will be dwarfed by the restrictions that are still in place," the official said,
saying to impose further sanctions threatened the negotiations not only with Iran but also among the six major powers.
"The P5+1 believes these are serious negotiations. They have a chance to be successful," the official said. "For us to slap on
sanctions in the middle of it, they see as bad faith."

Plan is a massive political defeat for Obama emboldens GOP opposition.

Rubin 9/9 Jennifer, Lose-lose for Democrats, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rightturn/wp/2013/09/09/lose-lose-for-democrats/,
A presidential loss on a resolution for the use of force would be extraordinary . The rebellion by Democrats that would result in
such a defeat would complete the humiliation for President Obama and deprive him of the ability to flail
at Republican straw men.
After a loss on the resolution, Republicans and Democrats alike would readily conclude that they dont have much reason
to follow the presidents lead for the remainder of his term. Like the foreign policy he has propounded, Obama would be
perceived as weak , unimpressive and easily ignored . If he cant persuade the country and/or Congress on
matters of war and peace, how is he going to sway them on the budget or other domestic matters? His
lame-duck status would be a given .

Increased sanctions dooms the US to inevitable military action in Iran.

AFP, 11/13/13 (New Iran sanctions would risk war: White House warns Congress; POSTED: 13 Nov
2013 03:09
URL: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/white-house-warns/884486.html; from
channelnewsasia.com)
The White House on Tuesday warned lawmakers mulling tougher sanctions on Iran that thwarting US
diplomacy could leave President Barack Obama little option but to use military force against Tehran's
nuclear program.
WASHINGTON: The White House warned US lawmakers on Tuesday that tightening sanctions on Iran
could box America into a "march to war" and derail a diplomatic push to limit Tehran's atomic program.
The warning marked a significant toughening of President Barack Obama's stance towards skeptical US
lawmakers as he prepares to resume high-stakes nuclear diplomacy with Iran later this month.
"The American people do not want a march to war," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.
Military action in Iran causes nuclear war.
Avery, 11/6/13 (John Scales, B.Sc. in theoretical physics from MIT and an M.Sc. from the University of
Chicago. He later studied theoretical chemistry at the University of London, and was awarded a Ph.D.
there in 1965. He is now Lektor Emeritus, Associate Professor, at the Department of Chemistry,
University of Copenhagen. Fellowships, memberships in societies: Since 1990 he has been the Contact
Person in Denmark for Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. In 1995, this group received
the Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts. He was the Member of the Danish Peace Commission of 1998.
Technical Advisor, World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe (1988- 1997). Chairman of the
Danish Peace Academy, An Attack On Iran Could Escalate Into Global Nuclear War; 06 November,
2013; http://www.countercurrents.org/avery061113.htm)
Despite the willingness of Iran's new President, Hassan Rouhani to make all reasonable concessions to US
demands, Israeli pressure groups in Washington continue to demand an attack on Iran. But such an attack
might escalate into a global nuclear war, with catastrophic consequences.
As we approach the 100th anniversary World War I, we should remember that this colossal disaster
escalated uncontrollably from what was intended to be a minor conflict. There is a danger that an attack
on Iran would escalate into a large-scale war in the Middle East, entirely destabilizing a region that is
already deep in problems.
The unstable government of Pakistan might be overthrown, and the revolutionary Pakistani government
might enter the war on the side of Iran, thus introducing nuclear weapons into the conflict. Russia and
China, firm allies of Iran, might also be drawn into a general war in the Middle East. Since much of the
world's oil comes from the region, such a war would certainly cause the price of oil to reach unheard-of
heights, with catastrophic effects on the global economy.
In the dangerous situation that could potentially result from an attack on Iran, there is a risk that nuclear
weapons would be used, either intentionally, or by accident or miscalculation. Recent research has shown
that besides making large areas of the world uninhabitable through long-lasting radioactive
contamination, a nuclear war would damage global agriculture to such a extent that a global famine of
previously unknown proportions would result.
Thus, nuclear war is the ultimate ecological catastrophe. It could destroy human civilization and much of
the biosphere. To risk such a war would be an unforgivable offense against the lives and future of all the
peoples of the world, US citizens included.

Uniqueness Deal Happening Now/Obama stalling Congress

Iran Talks are progressing now the P5+ is unified and Iran is willing to talk The only barrier to
success is the threatening of Congressional sanctions which Obama is using all of his PC to stop.
Talks solve Iranian prolif.
CNN, 11/15/13 (Official: Talks 'getting close' to deal with Iran on nuclear program; From Jim Sciutto,
CNN; updated 1:33 PM EST, Fri November 15, 2013; http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/15/world/meast/irannuclear-deal/)
The United States and other countries are "getting close" to an interim deal with Iran that would prevent its nuclear program
"from advancing, and roll it back" in key areas, a senior administration official said Friday.
Such a deal would "extend the breakout time" that Iran would need to achieve a nuclear weapon and "shorten the time to notice
if they tried," the official told reporters on the condition of not being identified.
The proposed deal -- covering every aspect of Iran's nuclear program, including uranium enrichment, uranium stockpiles and
all nuclear facilities including military ones -- would be completed during the next round of talks in Geneva, Switzerland,
though difficult issues remain, the official said.
"We are going to work very hard next week, the official said. "I don't know if we'll reach an agreement. I think it is quite
possible that we can. But there's still tough issues to negotiate."
The United States, along with the four other permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany -- the so-called
P5+1 -- came close to a deal during talks with Iran last week in Geneva, but the discussions ended with both sides blaming
each other for the lack of an agreement.
The P5+1 is "completely and totally unified" on the current outlines of the proposed deal, the official said.
The official warned against the imposition of further sanctions, which members of Congress have suggested.
"Further sanctions now threaten our good faith not just for Iran but for our P5+1 partners," the official said.
Under the plan, sanctions relief "way south" of one proposed figure of $10 billion would be "metered out over the six months
of an interim agreement to ensure compliance."
Israel and the United States "may not see eye to eye on this tactically but are absolutely in agreement that Iran will not have a
nuclear weapon," the official said.
News of the development came a day after President Barack Obama said additional sanctions targeting Iran's disputed nuclear
program could undermine international progress already made on the issue.
"If we're serious about pursuing diplomacy, then there's no need for us to add new sanctions on top of the sanctions that are
already very effective, and that brought them to the table in the first place," Obama told reporters Thursday at the White House.
He said he would like to see if a "short-term, phase-one deal" with Iran can be put in place in the near term that requires Tehran
to freeze aspects of its nuclear program while the international community negotiates a more comprehensive long-term deal.
His remarks came amid a growing call in Congress for tighter sanctions to get Iran to agree to a deal that would stop what U.S.
officials have said is its march toward a nuclear weapon.
"If it turns out six months from now that they're not serious" about the agreement, "we can dial those sanctions right back up,"
Obama said, noting that the economic penalties have hurt Iran's economy.
Obama's comments came the same day the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, released a report
saying Iran had halted the expansion of a majority of its uranium enrichment capacity.
Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman is scheduled to lead the American delegation at the round of talks next week in
Geneva.

Uniqueness Deal Happening Now/Obama stalling Congress

Iran talks will succeed now and Obama is delaying sanctions now Obamas focus is key to
stopping sanctions.
NYT, 11/14/ 13 (Obama Calls for Patience in Iran Talks; By MARK LANDLER and DAVID E.
SANGER; Published: November 14, 2013; http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/us/politics/obamairan.html)
WASHINGTON President Obama made a vigorous appeal to Congress on Thursday to give breathing space to his efforts to
forge a nuclear deal with Iran, and the prospects for an interim agreement may have improved with the release of a report by
international inspectors who said that for the first time in years, they saw evidence that the Iranians have put the brakes on their
nuclear expansion.
The inspectors, from the International Atomic Energy Agency, said that very few new advanced centrifuges had been installed
since President Hassan Rouhani of Iran took office in June, promising a new start with the West, and that little significant
progress has been made on the construction of a new nuclear reactor, which became a point of contention in negotiations in
Geneva last week.
The slowdown, according to diplomats familiar with the Iranian work, was clearly political, not driven by technical problems.
But it was also easily reversible, suggesting that Iran was waiting to see what kind of relief from sanctions it could obtain from
the West in the negotiations.
The report was immediately seized on by advocates and critics of an agreement that was almost signed in Geneva.
Administration officials said Irans restraint was the latest in a series of signals by Mr. Rouhani that he was an agent of change,
and that it was an answer to skeptics who have said the Iranian leader was all talk and no action.
But critics in Congress and overseas dismissed the report, saying that Iran had not removed any centrifuges and continued to
enrich uranium at a steady rate. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, one of the most vocal critics of a deal, said the
only reason Iran had not expanded its enrichment capability was that they dont need to.
For Mr. Obama, who has been fending off accusations that the American negotiators were giving away too much to Iran in
return for concessions that critics said would scarcely slow its march to nuclear capability, the findings could fortify his
argument that the Senate should hold off on new sanctions to avoid derailing the talks.
Lets test how willing they are to actually resolve this diplomatically and peacefully, Mr. Obama said at a White House news
conference. We will have lost nothing if at the end of the day it turns out that they are not prepared to provide the international
community the hard proof and assurances necessary for us to know that theyre not pursuing a nuclear weapon.
The confidential report was released to the nuclear agencys member states just minutes before Mr. Obama spoke, and he did
not mention the findings. But the president made a strong case for diplomacy, trying to quell an effort in Congress to ramp up
sanctions against Iran rather than modestly ease them, in return for a six-month halt in the progress of the nuclear program.

Uniqueness Deal Happening Now/Obama stalling Congress

Obama will secure short-term relief from new sanctions - this week is key solves Iranian prolif
PTI 11-13-13 (New sanctions risk war with Iran: US, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/newsanctions-risk-war-with-iran-us/1194450/2, )

The White House has warned lawmakers that tightening

sanctions on Iran could push the US on a " march to war " and

derail a diplomatic push to limit Tehran's nuclear programme. "The American people do not want a march to war," White House
spokesman Jay Carney said on Tuesday. The US, Britain, China, France, Germany, Iran and Russia will send top nuclear
negotiators to Geneva next week to see whether they can push for a transparent nuclear programme in Iran. "This is a
decision to support diplomacy and a possible peaceful resolution to this issue," Carney said. Iran maintains that its uranium
enrichment is for energy production and medical research, not for any covert military objective. But until the recent election of President Hassan Rouhani, it
refused to compromise in talks with world powers. Carney said Americans "justifiably and understandably prefer a peaceful solution that

prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon , and this agreement, if it's achieved, has the potential to do that".
Responding to Rouhani's promise of flexibility, President Barack Obama

is keen on securing a diplomatic agreement . His telephone

chat with Rouhani in September was the first direct conversation between US and Iranian leaders in more than three decades. The unprecedented outreach has
angered US allies like Israel. "The alternative is military action," Carney said. "It is important to understand that if pursuing a

resolution diplomatically is disallowed or ruled out, what options then do we and our allies have to prevent Iran
from acquiring a nuclear weapon?" Carney said. "The American people should not be forced to choose between military action and a bad deal
that accepts a nuclear Iran," he said. US Secretary of State John Kerry will take the administration's position directly to the Senate Banking Committee, which
is mulling a new sanctions package against Iran. "The secretary will be clear that putting new sanctions in place would be a mistake," State
Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said. "What

we are asking for right now is a pause, a temporary pause in sanctions," she told

reporters. "We are not rolling them back." A House committee, meanwhile, held a hearing to vent its frustration with Kerry and an Obama administration, who
they believe should adopt a far tougher line with Tehran. The Republican-led House of Representatives has already passed a bill to harden up the sanctions, but

the Senate agreed to delay further action to allow diplomacy a chance to succeed.

Uniqueness Deal Happening Now/Obama stalling Congress

Obamas push building momentum for diplomacy over sanctions
- recent letter proves diplomacy supporters > sanctions
- momentum building senate increasingly opposed to sanctions
- senate banking committee head + chair of senate intell comm.
- Obama pushing hard
Brown 11-15-13 (Hayes, National Security Reporter/Blogger with ThinkProgress.org, B.A. in IR from
MSU, Push For More Sanctions On Iran Draws Scant Support In Congress,
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/11/15/2949351/iran-sanctions-letter/, CMR)
A letter urging the Senate to pass further sanctions on Irans nuclear program failed to receive

half

as many

supporters as a letter earlier this year calling on the Obama administration to increase diplomatic overtures
towards Tehran. House Homeland Security Committee chairman Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) spearheaded the more recent letter, which urges the
Senates leaders to take up a package of new sanctions against Iran that passed the House earlier this year. The possibility of tighter sanctions will enhance our
leverage in the nuclear standoff between the Irans Supreme Leader and the international community, the letter argues. We should ensure that tougher
penalties will be available should Tehran be found to be using the negotiations as a stalling tactic. McCauls letter is heralded as bipartisan on the site of Rep.
Grace Meng (D-NY), with 53 Republicans and 10 Democrats having signed onto the document. However, the letters 63 signatories dont

match up with a message to President Obama earlier this year pressing for an increase in diplomacy with Iran
while warning of taking actions that might throw any talks off. That effort bore the signatures of 128 members of the body, more
than a quarter of the Houses total membership , including 16 Republicans. Reps. Charles Dent (R-PA) and David Price (DNC) sponsored the letter in July, shortly before Iranian president Hassan Rouhani was inaugurated, urging Obama to pursue the potential opportunity
presented by reinvigorating U.S. efforts to secure a negotiated nuclear agreement. We must also be careful not to preempt this potential opportunity by
engaging in actions that delegitimize the newly elected president and weaken his standing relative to hardliners within the regime who oppose his professed
policy of reconciliation and peace, the letter cautioned. The more recent letter also appears to have been written prior to the latest International Atomic
Energy Association report on Irans program becoming public. While recent assessments of the progress of Irans nuclear program vary what is clear is that
time is running short, the letter says. In contrast, the IAEA said in their November quarterly report that since Rouhani took office, progress on Irans nuclear
efforts has come to a virtual stand-still. Members of the P5+1 group composed of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China
are currently preparing for the next round of negotiations with Iran in Geneva on Nov. 20. Senate

members are slowly beginning to

come out against new sanctions while the talks are ongoing, even as Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) mulls bringing the
Houses legislation up before his Senate Banking Committee. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chair of the powerful
Senate Intelligence Committee, on Friday became the latest senator to do so. The purpose of sanctions was to bring Iran to the negotiating table,
and they have succeeded in doing so, Feinstein wrote in a statement. Tacking new sanctions onto the defense authorization bill or any other
legislation would not lead to a better deal. It would lead to no deal at all . The White House has been pressing
the Senate to hold off on new sanctions while the negotiations continue, ramping up their rhetoric

over the

course of the week. On Wednesday, White House press secretary Jay Carney warned that new legislation could put America on the march to war. Speaking at
a press appearance on Thursday, President Obama likewise

this time.

made clear

that he

believes theres no need for new sanctions at

2NC Impact Extension

Global nuclear war in a month if talks fail US sanctions will wreck diplomacy.
Press TV 11/13 Global nuclear conflict between US, Russia, China likely if Iran talks fail,
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/11/13/334544/global-nuclear-war-likely-if-iran-talks-fail/

A global conflict between the US, Russia, and China is likely in the coming months should the world
powers fail to reach a nuclear deal with Iran , an American analyst says. If the talks fail, if the agreements being pursued are not
successfully carried forward and implemented, then there would be enormous international pressure to drive towards a
conflict with Iran before [US President Barack] Obama leaves office and thats a very great danger that no one can
underestimate the importance of, senior editor at the Executive Intelligence Review Jeff Steinberg told Press TV on Wednesday. The
United States could find itself on one side and Russia and China on the other and those are the kinds of conditions
that can lead to miscalculation and general roar, Steinberg said. So the danger in this situation is that if these talks dont go
forward, we could be facing a global conflict in the coming months

and years and

thats got to be avoided at all

costs when youve got countries like the United States, Russia, and China with their arsenals of nuclear weapons , he
warned. The warning came one day after the White House told Congress not to impose new sanctions against
Tehran because failure in talks with Iran could lead to war . White House press secretary Jay Carney called on
Congress to allow more time for diplomacy as US lawmakers are considering tougher sanctions . "This is a
decision to support diplomacy and a possible peaceful resolution to this issue," Carney said. "The American people do not want a march to war."
Meanwhile, US Secretary of State John Kerry is set to meet with the Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday to hold off on more sanctions on the Iranian
economy. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Kerry "will be clear that putting new sanctions in place would be a

mistake." "While we are still determining if there is a diplomatic path forward, what we are asking for right now is a
pause, a temporary pause in sanctions. We are not taking away sanctions. We are not rolling them back," Psaki added.

2NC Israel Strike Impact Scenario

New sanctions collapse talks means Israel strikes Iran
Robert Parry 11/14 (investigative reporter, who broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The
Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s) A showdown for war or peace, The Arab American,
http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/index.php?mod=article&cat=commentary&article=7821
The battle lines of this high-stakes diplomatic conflict are forming with Netanyahu , Bandar and American
neoconservatives on one side and Obama, Putin and foreign-policy realists on the other. Besides the future
direction of the Middle East, the political fortunes of individual leaders are at stake, with either Obama or Netanyahu
potentially emerging as the biggest loser. Netanyahus strategy calls for rallying Israels staunch supporters in
Congress and the U.S. news media to criticize Obama for showing weakness in trying to resolve disputes with Iran and Syria through constructive
diplomacy rather than military force or coercive economic warfare. On Thursday, Netanyahu called the tentative agreement with Iran a grievous historic
error that would not eliminate Irans potential for eventually moving to build a nuclear bomb. If the news that I am receiving of the impending proposal by
the p-5-plus-1 is true, this is the deal of the century, for Iran, said Netanyahu, referring to the five permanent Security Council members, plus Germany, which
have been negotiating with Iran over constraints on its nuclear program. Trying to head off the deal, some of Netanyahus backers

called for more economic sanctions on Iran, even as its new government under President Hassan Rouhani signals a desire for a diplomatic
settlement that would include new limits and more supervision on its nuclear program. Torpedoing the talks by enacting more
sanctions would

likely

increase the prospects of a n eventual U.S.- Israel air assault on Irans nuclear facilities,

move that Netanyahu has advocated in the past. Even if we get this de minimus interim deal [with Iran], we could be in serious trouble, said Mark
Dubowitz, executive director of the neocon Foundation for Defense of Democracies. The Israelis and the Saudis are already freaking out about the dangers of
any interim deal. This would demonstrate to them and Congress that the Obama administration has entered the Persian nuclear bazaar and gotten totally
outnegotiated. Similarly, Israeli and Saudi hardliners are furious with Obama for scrapping a planned military strike against Syria last August in favor of
having the Syrian government give up its chemical weapons in response to a U.S.-Russian initiative. Obama also was chafing under the rough-riding style of
Netanyahu, who has frequently brought his whip down on Obama, scolding him in the Oval Office, going over Obamas head to Congress and the U.S. news
media, and essentially endorsing Republican Mitt Romney for president in 2012. Netanyahu also has sought to corner Obama into military conflicts with Iran
and Syria, challenging the Presidents goal of rebalancing U.S. geopolitical interests away from the Middle East. Now the stakes have been

raised. Either Obamas regional strategy of diplomacy will prevail with the support of Russian President Putin or Netanyahu
and Bandar will manage to rally their supporters, especially in U.S. political and media circles, to push the region
deeper into conflict.

That turns all of case and causes global nuclear war.

Reuveny, 10 professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University
(Rafael, Unilateral strike could trigger World War III, global depression Gazette Xtra, 8/7, - See more
at: http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/aug/07/con-unilateral-strike-could-trigger-world-wariii-/#sthash.ec4zqu8o.dpuf) CMR
A unilateral Israeli strike on Irans nuclear facilities would likely have dire consequences, including a
regional war, global economic collapse and a major power clash. For an Israeli campaign to succeed, it must be quick and
decisive. This requires an attack that would be so overwhelming that Iran would not dare to respond in full force. Such an outcome is extremely unlikely since

the locations of some of Irans nuclear facilities are not fully known and known facilities are buried deep
underground. All of these widely spread facilities are shielded by elaborate air defense systems constructed not only by the Iranians but also the
Chinese and, likely, the Russians as well. By now, Iran has also built redundant command and control systems and nuclear
facilities, developed early warning systems, acquired ballistic and cruise missiles and upgraded and enlarged its armed forces. Because Iran is wellprepared, a single, conventional Israeli strikeor even numerous strikescould not destroy all of its capabilities, giving Iran time to
respond. Unlike Iraq, whose nuclear program Israel destroyed in 1981, Iran has a second-strike capability comprised of a coalition of Iranian,
Syrian, Lebanese, Hezbollah, Hamas, and, perhaps, Turkish forces. Internal pressure might compel Jordan, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority to join the
assault, turning a bad situation into a regional war. During the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, at the apex of its power, Israel was saved from defeat by President
Nixons shipment of weapons and planes. Today, Israels numerical inferiority is greater, and it faces more determined and better-equipped opponents. After
years of futilely fighting Palestinian irregular armies, Israel has lost some of its perceived superioritybolstering its enemies resolve. Despite Israels touted
defense systems, Iranian coalition missiles, armed forces, and terrorist attacks would likely wreak havoc on its enemy, leading to a prolonged tit-for-tat. In the
absence of massive U.S. assistance, Israels military resources may quickly dwindle, forcing it to use its alleged nuclear

weapons, as it had reportedly almost done in 1973. An Israeli nuclear attack would likely destroy most of Irans capabilities, but a crippled Iran and its
coalition could still attack neighboring oil facilities, unleash global terrorism, plant mines in the Persian Gulf and impair maritime trade in the Mediterranean,
Red Sea and Indian Ocean. Middle Eastern oil shipments would likely slow to a trickle as production declines due to the war and insurance
companies decide to drop their risky Middle Eastern clients. Iran and Venezuela would likely stop selling oil to the United States and Europe. From there,

things could deteriorate as they did in the 1930s. The

world economy would head into a tailspin; international acrimony

would rise; and Iraqi and Afghani citizens might fully turn on the United States, immediately requiring the deployment of more American troops.
Russia, China, Venezuela, and maybe Brazil and Turkeyall of which essentially support Irancould be tempted to form an
alliance and openly challenge the U.S. hegemony. Russia and China might rearm their injured Iranian protege overnight, just as Nixon
rearmed Israel, and threaten to intervene, just as the U.S.S.R. threatened to join Egypt and Syria in 1973. President Obamas response would
likely put U.S. forces on nuclear alert, replaying Nixons nightmarish scenario. Iran may well feel duty-bound to respond to a unilateral
attack by its Israeli archenemy, but it knows that it could not take on the United States head-to-head. In contrast, if the United States leads the attack, Irans
response would likely be muted. If Iran chooses to absorb an American-led strike, its allies would likely protest and send weapons but would probably not risk
using force. While no one has a crystal ball, leaders should be risk-averse when choosing war as a foreign policy tool. If attacking Iran is deemed necessary,
Israel must wait for an American green light. A

unilateral Israeli strike could ultimately spark World War III .

2NC Terrorism Impact Scenario

A Nuclear Iran causes nuclear terrorism.

Avraham 9/9
Rachel, Analysis: The Main Terror Threat is Iran, Not Syria,
http://www.jerusalemonline.com/rachel/analysis-the-main-terror-threat-is-iran-not-syria-1579,
Speaking at the World Summit on Counter-Terrorism, Maj. General Amos Gilad reiterated that the main effort should be to prevent Iran from going nuclear.
Israel has to focus on this threat. A nuclear

Iran can change the entire order in the Middle East. He claimed that
Iranian officials have even admitted that their nuclear program will help terrorist organizations like
Hezbollah, by providing them with a nuclear umbrella that will protect them against retaliation whenever they
engage in acts of terrorism, thus

thwarting

Israeli and western

counter-terror

measures. Prof. Uzi Arad, head of the National Security Council,

added that from an international legal perspective, Iran is also a greater violator than Syria. While emphasizing that there are many atrocities being committed
in Syria as we speak and that Assad has done terrible things, he claims that the Geneva Convention only prohibits using chemical weapons on foreign
fighters, not ones own citizens. Furthermore, Syria never ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, implying that Syria cannot be held legally responsible for
using chemical weapons against her own people. To the contrary, Arad emphasized that Iran has violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran
ratified, by internationally seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Their level of breach is higher than the Syrians, Arad stated. Additionally, he believes that
from a strategic point of view, our eyes should be on Iran, even if you look at Syria. Iran

is the main sponsor of terrorism in the

Middle East, while Syria is merely a proxy state of Iran. Israeli Defense Minister Boogie Yaalon emphasized, When we talk about
states that support terrorism, Iran tops the list. He stated that Iran supports terrorism around the world as a means to export their
revolution to other nations, with a special emphasis on Shiite communities in countries like Lebanon and Bahrain. He accused Iran of taking advantage of the
instability caused by the Arab Spring to promote radical Islam. Yaalon stated that Iran exploits the fact that the majority of states in the Middle East were
artificially formed by the Sykes-Picot Agreement and were only held together by a dictator, causing these countries to descend into chaos once the dictator was
overthrown. He also noted that Iran was behind the attempted assassination of the Saudi Ambassador, as well as the Burgas terror assault and numerous attacks
on Israeli embassies, demonstrating the extent to which Iran is a threat to world peace. These Israeli

security experts view Irans

nuclear program to be a threat to global security, while Assads regime is mainly a threat to his own people, even though there are
spillovers into the Golan Heights and other areas. To confirm this point, Arad claims that more Americans support the United States attacking Iran to prevent
the country from becoming a nuclear power than starting a war to protect the Syrian people from Assads atrocities, since the American people understand that
Iran is a greater global threat than Syria.

2NC Link Extension

Link debate loss on war powers is a crushing defeat for Obama emboldens future GOP
challenges thats Rubin key distinction for our scenario plan means hed be forced to give-in to
war hawks on sanctions to save face
Chait 5/23/13 (Jonathon, Obama Guards His Left Over Terrorism,
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/05/obama-guards-his-left-over-terrorism.html, CMR)

President Obamas

speech today defending his conduct in the war on terror was notable for what he was defending it against not

against the soft-on-terror (and maybe sorta-kinda-Muslim) attack that Republicans have lobbed against him since he first ran for president, but against critics on the left. It is a
sudden and welcome turnabout. When Obama first appeared on the national scene, he was a political novice, a liberal Democrat who had made his name opposing the Iraq War, a

The need to defend his hawkish credentials was an, and perhaps the,
essential task of his 2008 election. And the dynamic persisted throughout his first term, as Republicans used events like
Obamas attempt to close the Guantanamo Bay prison and the Christmas bomber to revive their weak-on-terror
constitutional law professor, and his middle name was Hussein.

caricature . Having fortified his right flank, Obamas left was totally exposed. Rand Paul signaled the first volley, by launching a high-profile filibuster speech on drones that
attracted the sudden support of fellow Republicans who had expressed zero previous qualms. The Department of Justice leak-prosecution story was the event that turned Obamas
civil liberties weakness into a gaping vulnerability. As Ive written, its political importance was a pure accident of timing. A new (inaccurate) report on Benghazi, followed by the IRS
scandal, created a sudden frenzy. Thats when the DOJ leak story dropped. And what would ordinarily be considered a policy dispute and one that attracted the interest only of a
handful of liberals and libertarians became a scandal pursued by Republicans, who previously had stood to Obamas right on the issue. The DOJ story was a problem for Obama
because it was a legitimate case of abuse, unlike the nothing-burger Benghazi story or the IRS episode for which the White House seemed to bear no responsibility. The legitimacy of

Obama used his speech today to

shore up his exposed left flank. He did so in several ways. He argued for his administrations drone strikes, which have
become a symbol of out-of-control military power, as a flawed but necessary step that minimizes civilian casualties in comparison with the alternative. Obama
the DOJ policy, even though its not a scandal by any normal definition, kept the damaging scandal meme alive.

promised to review proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of war zones that go beyond our reporting to Congress. He insisted that he would not and could not use
drones to attack an American citizen on U.S. soil. He promised to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can
continue to fight terrorists without keeping America on a perpetual war-time footing. And he pledged a review of the DOJs approach to prosecuting national security leaks.

2NC Link/Solvency Roll-back card

Restraints on executive war powers ensure huge political controversy---ensures new concessions to
the president which rolls-back solvency.
Kassop 11 (Nancy, Professor at the State University of New York at New Paltz, and former chair of the
Political Science Department at the school , Reverse Effect: Congressional and Judicial Restraints on
Presidential Power, p. 65-66)
An example of a statutory superstructure is the War Powers Resolution of 1973, born out of Congresss frustration and inability to assert its own constitutional prerogatives and to effectively challenge a

war powers responsibilities, but questions of

how and when each branch was supposed to act have engendered controversy since the nations
founding. The War Powers Resolution, similar to other framework laws, may be viewed as a separate layer of law sitting on top of those constitutional articles (hence, a statutory superstructure) as
president during an unpopular war. The Constitution gives Congress in Article I and the president in Article II specific and distinct

an attempt to clarify the respective duties of each institution and to provide an orderly process through a series of sequential actions by which those duties are exercised. In this sense and in the most charitable
description of the resolution, although it does not change or add to the Constitution, it facilitates the legal authorities specified in Articles I and II. Similar descriptions would apply to other framework laws.
Koh focused exclusively on the use of these laws in foreign policy decision-making, where they were designed not only to restrain executive discretion, but also to increase congressional input into key
foreign policy decisions, [4] although this description applies as well to such laws in the domestic policy arena. As examples, in addition to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, he cites the National
Emergencies Act of 1976 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, to which one can also add the Case-Zablocki Act of 1972 (regulating executive agreements), the Hughes Ryan
Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1974 (requiring presidential reporting to Congress of covert actions), the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 (regulating national security
surveillance), and the Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980 (the product of the 1976 Church and Pike congressional committee hearings on intelligence operations, establishing congressional intelligence
committees and requiring presidential findings for covert operations). In the domestic policy field, examples include the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (establishing new
congressional budget committees and a new budget process), the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (containing provisions to determine the need for and selection of an independent counsel), and the

The intended purpose common to all of these laws is to

was to be accomplished by congressional monitoring and

Presidential Records Act of 1978 (establishing governmental control of presidential records and a process for public release of them).
both limit discretionary actions of presidents and to promote greater participation by Congress. This

oversight

close
of executive actions through the imposition of procedural requirements, such as reporting and consulting provisions, legislative vetoes, findings of fact, and/or funding restrictions. It is
not difficult to see how these desired outcomes were an obvious reaction to the Watergate/Vietnam era where the exact opposite inter-branch dynamic predominated: unlimited discretion by presidents and
ineffective efforts by Congress to exercise its constitutional powers. Koh was quick to note, specifically in reference to foreign affairs but equally as true in domestic affairs, that virtually overlooked..was
that this generation of

statutes created not only procedural constraints , but also substantial fresh delegations of foreign affairs authority. By 1988, it had become clear

that the executive branch had successfully tapped many of these broad new authorizations while paying only lip service to the accompanying procedural strictures. [5] Herein, then, lies the key to why these
statutes, prompted by a congressional motive to restrain the chief executive, resulted, instead, in expanding executive power because they simultaneously delegated power to that office. Additionally,

the

intense politics involved in the legislative process through which each of these statutes was

produced ultimately led negotiators to compromise, which, thus, diluted the force and effect of the
proposed legislation. In other words, presidentialists would not willingly agree to tie the hands of future chief executives: therefore, in exchange, they
demanded and received some new delegation of power from Congress to counter-balance their
grudging acceptance of new legislative restrictions and controls on presidential policy-making.

PC Key to stop Sanctions

Political capital key to preventing sanctions checks congressional hawks and pro-israel lobbies
Seyed Hossein Mousavian 10/18, 2013 The road to finalizing a nuclear deal with Iran,
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/10/18/iran-nuclear-talksgenevauraniumenrichment.html
These ongoing talks have the potential to become a historic moment for the U.S., Iran and the international
community. However, to ensure their progress, President Obama must do two things. First, he must resist pressure from
hawkish members of Congress, Israel and lobbying groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs and United Against Nuclear Iran. And second, he must include significant sanctions relief in the final agreement with
Iran. While Iran and the international community are ready for a final deal, the question remains whether

Obama has the will to buck

the hawkish pro-Israel

lobby and the political capital to end sanctions.

Obamas PC is vital to secure relief from sanctions keeps Iran at the table to secure a deal
Cockburn 11-11-13 (Patrick, Irish journalist who has been a Middle East correspondent since 1979 for
the Financial Times, Why Irans Concessions Wont Lead to a Nuclear Agreement,
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/11/11/why-irans-concessions-wont-lead-to-a-nuclear-agreement/,)

Political will for a deal is still there in Washington and Tehran, but its opponents will also gather their
formidable forces. These include Republicans and many Democrats, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, France. The momentum towards an
interim agreement that was building at the end of last week has been broken. In Tehran President Hassan Rouhani has so far had a fairly easy
ride because of his recent election and the support of the Supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. But if he is seen as offering too many
concessions on the nuclear programme and not getting enough back in terms of a relaxation of economic sanctions then he
and his supporters become politically vulnerable. There are some signs that this is already happening. The Reformists in Iran will also be
vulnerable to allegations that they have given the impression that they are negotiating from weakness because economic sanctions are putting unsustainable
pressure on Iran. If this argument was true then Israel, France and Saudi Arabia can argue that more time and more sanctions will make the Iranians willing to
concede even more. There is no doubt that sanctions do have a serious impact on the Iranian economy, but it does not
necessarily follow that it will sacrifice its nuclear programme . The confrontational policy advocated much of the US Congress may, on the
contrary decide Iran to build a nuclear weapon on the grounds that the international campaign against Iranian nuclear development is only one front in an
overall plan to overthrow the system of government installed in Iran since the fall of the Shah in 1979. In other words, Iranian concessions on nuclear issues
are not going to lead to an agreement, because the real objective is regime change. On the other hand, the decision by President Obama not to
launch airstrikes against Syria, Irans crucial Arab ally, after the use of chemical weapons on 21 August, has to a degree

political atmosphere. This could go into reverse if Congress adds

by Israel resume.

Much will depend on how much political capital

prospects for a deal being extinguished

even

President

tougher sanctions

demilitarised the
and threats of military action

Obama is willing spend to prevent

by those who believe that confrontation with Iran works better than diplomacy.

PC is key.

Leverett 11-7-13 (Flynt, senior fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C. and a
professor at the Pennsylvania State University School of International Affairs, and Hillary Mann Leverett,
EO of Strategic Energy and Global Analysis (STRATEGA), a political risk consultancy, Americas
moment of truth about Iran, http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/11/07/333513/americas-moment-of-truthabout-iran/, )

America can also fail Irans test if it is unable to provide comprehensive sanctions relief as part of a negotiated nuclear settlement. The
Obama administration now acknowledges what we have noted for some time-that, beyond transitory executive branch initiatives, lifting or even
substantially modifying U.S. sanctions to support diplomatic progress will take congressional action. During Obamas
presidency, many U.S. sanctions initially imposed by executive order have been written into law. These bills-signed, with little heed to their long-term
consequences, by Obama himself-have also greatly expanded U.S. secondary sanctions, which threaten to punish third-country entities not for anything theyve done in America, but
for perfectly lawful business they conduct in or with Iran. The bills contain conditions for removing sanctions stipulating not just the dismantling of Irans nuclear infrastructure, but
also termination of Tehrans ties to movements like Hizballah that Washington (foolishly) designates as terrorists and the Islamic Republics effective transformation into a secular
liberal republic. The

Obama administration may have managed to delay passage of yet another sanctions bill for a few

weeks-but Congressional Democrats no less than congressional Republicans have made publicly clear that they will not relax conditions for removing existing sanctions to help
Obama conclude and implement a nuclear deal. If their obstinacy holds, why should others respect Washingtons high-handed demands for compliance with its extraterritorial (hence,
illegal) sanctions against Iran? Going into the next round of nuclear talks in Geneva on Thursday, it

spend enormous
depends

is unambiguously plain that Obama will have to

political capital to realign relations with Iran. Americas future standing as a great power

significantly

on his readiness to do so .

AT: Sanctions wont kill talks

New sanctions SHATTER agreement
Klapper 11-13-13 (Bradley, Kerry: New Iran sanctions could scuttle diplomacy,
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-11-13/obama-seeks-time-from-congress-for-iran-diplomacy, )
Secretary of State John Kerry

warned Congress Wednesday against scuttling a historic opportunity for a nuclear pact

with Iran by pressing ahead with new sanctions while international negotiators seek to prevent Tehran from being able to assemble an atomic weapons
arsenal. Kerry, who as a senator joined the effort to impose crippling oil, trade and investment restrictions on Iran, said the United States and other
world powers are united behind an offer they presented to Iranian negotiators in Geneva last week. But he said new
action now from U.S. lawmakers could shatter an international coalition made up of countries with interests as divergent as France,
Russia and China, endangering hopes for a peaceful end to the decade-long nuclear standoff with the Islamic republic. "We put these
sanctions in place in order to be able to put us in the strongest position possible to be able to negotiate. We now are negotiating," Kerry told
reporters ahead of testifying before the Senate Banking Committee. "And the risk is that if Congress were to unilaterally move to raise
sanctions, it could break faith in those negotiations, and actually stop them and break them apart."

More ev sustaining the current track is key

Klapper 11-13-13 (Bradley, Kerry: New Iran sanctions could scuttle diplomacy,
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-11-13/obama-seeks-time-from-congress-for-iran-diplomacy, )
But the former Massachusetts senator said moving the goalposts during the current lull in talks by adding
new sanctions against Iran's oil and other industrial sectors would cause America's negotiating partners to
see the U.S. as "dealing in bad faith." " They would bolt and they will say, 'That's not the deal,'" he said.

"And then the sanctions do fall apart ."

No new Sanction are key its a QPQ

Pace 11-12-13 (Julie, Obama faces worry at home, abroad over Iran talks,
http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20131112/NEWS03/131119869/1066, )
Negotiations are due to resume in Geneva on Nov. 20. In exchange for nuclear concessions from Iran, the U.S.
and world powers are offering Tehran limited and reversible relief from economic sanctions that have strained its
economy.

AT: Sanctions Inevitable

Even if theres opposition, that just proves Obama has to be careful how he navigates the political
terrain the plan would ruin that calculation
- Kerry, Sherman, key white house allies
- Senate tenuously supportive
- Obama reach-out building momentum against sanctions
Dreyfuss 11-13-13 (Bob, Did the Israel Lobby Agree to Hold Off on New Iran Sanctions?,
http://www.thenation.com/blog/177144/did-israel-lobby-agree-hold-new-iran-sanctions#, CMR)
The New York Times today reports, in an odd turn of phrase, that the

Obama administrations second-biggest enemy in its search for a deal with

Iran is, well, the US Congress. Says the Times, the administration is gingerly weighing a threat to the talks potentially more troublesome than the opaque leadership in
Tehran: Congress. Thats because the Senate is considering the passage of yet another round of anti-Iran sanctions, following the passage
last summer of a similar bill by the House. Making explicit the fact that he understands perfectly that yet more superfluous economic sanctions now, in the midst of delicate talks with
Iran, could upset the whole thing, Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) said: I understand the problem that this creates at the negotiating table. In other words, he understands itand he
wants to do it anyway. Today the leaders of the

US negotiating team are on Capitol Hill, trying to dissuade senators from that sort
of outright sabotage. Secretary of State John Kerry, along with Wendy Sherman, are meeting with members of the Senate
Banking Committee and others to beg, plead and cajole the Capitol Hill busybodies, many of whom are strongly influenced by the Israel
lobby and its chief arm, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

So far , it appears that the Democratic-controlled Senate, despite its AIPAC ties, is

willing to go along with White House requests to avoid interfering in the talks . Reports The Wall Street Journal: Proponents of
tougher sanctions could seek avenues beside the Banking Committee to move a measure. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) is likely to oppose such a move, however.
Mr. Reid on Tuesday warned

against attempts to force extraneous issues into the debate over the defense bill.

Obama administration officials have been reaching out to a number of lawmakers in recent days to tamp down

any

momentum for new sanctions. Mr. Kerry has personally spoken with key senators while traveling in recent days, and was to speak to top Senate Democrats
on Wednesday.

AT: Iran not serious/will kill deal

Iran showing good will has not increased nuclear capabilities.
NYT, 11/14/ 13 (Obama Calls for Patience in Iran Talks; By MARK LANDLER and DAVID E.
SANGER; Published: November 14, 2013; http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/us/politics/obamairan.html)
The I.A.E.A. report does not show anything close to an across-the-board freeze or rollback in Irans program. Iran continues to
produce low-enriched uranium around the pace it has in the past. But inspectors, who completed their last visit to Iran just days
ago, said that no more new, highly efficient centrifuges that the country has invested heavily in building were installed at its
two main nuclear sites. Those centrifuges, called the IR-2, were particularly worrisome because they would shorten Irans
breakout time to build a weapon, if they were operating.
The report said that Iran, at its Fordo plant near the city of Qum, had not put more of its existing 2,710 centrifuges into
operation. Only 696 of the installed machines, all of the older IR-1 model, are actually enriching uranium well below the
plants capacity.
Irans stockpile of its most worrisome category of uranium enriched to nearly 20 percent, close to bomb grade increased
only modestly. Since the last quarterly accounting, Iran has added roughly 10 kilograms, or about 22 pounds, of uranium
enriched to 20 percent purity to its stockpile, bringing its total of the medium-enriched material to roughly 196 kilograms, or
about 432 pounds. Iran is turning most of that uranium into fuel for reactors, which diminishes its threat as a bomb fuel.
The report also found that Iran had performed only minor work on the heavy-water reactor at Arak, a facility that has raised
alarm because it could eventually produce plutonium, giving Iran a second source of bomb fuel.
Nader Karimi Joni, a political analyst close to the Rouhani administration, said, It is fair to say that Iran is showing good will,
just like the European Union and the United States have done.

AT: Right to Enrich will kill deal

Right to enrich wont be deal breaker in negotiations.
Reuters, 11/16/13 ('Quite possible' Iran, powers can reach nuclear deal next week: U.S. official; By
Lesley Wroughton; Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:21am EST; http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/16/us-irannuclear-usa-idUSBRE9AF00I20131116)
Commenting on a U.N. inspection report released on November 14 that said Iran had stopped expanding its uranium
enrichment capacity, the official said the development was "a good thing" but did not resolve fundamental questions and
concerns about Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
"We appreciate the step but the reason for our negotiation is to get at certainty that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon and we are
a long way from that," the official added.
Western diplomats said one of the sticking points during talks was Iran's argument that it retains the "right" to enrich uranium.
The United States argues Iran does not intrinsically have that right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The official dismissed suggestions that the issue could be a deal breaker. "I think there is a way to navigate that," the official
said. "We each understand where each other is and what is possible, and what is not."

AT: Negotiations Fail

Negotiations at the foreign level on track domestic politics key
Matthew 11-13-13 (Francis, Nuclear deal with Iran is on right track,
http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/nuclear-deal-with-iran-is-on-right-track-1.1254736, )
A nuclear deal with Iran is now a real possibility . All sides have recognised that they want to find a way
forward and they all agree that diplomacy can work. This is a huge shift from the deliberately confrontational days of Iranian president
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and US president George W. Bush, when all sides wanted to maximise the drama of the confrontation for their own purposes. But
despite high hopes of a deal being announced in Geneva early this week, it failed due to last-minute problems and a dramatic refusal from the French to rubber
stamp the six-month interim programme. However, in their final debrief, European Union Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton, Irans Foreign

Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and US Secretary of State John Kerry all spoke of how much closer they were to an
agreement than they have been in decades. Nonetheless, the devil is in the detail and none more so when dealing with making Irans nuclear facilities
open to the international community. The mechanics of ensuring full transparency at a large number of different kinds of nuclear facilities are both
politically sensitive and technically difficult. They make it very easy to derail progress unless there is a clear
political lead

from the politicians that would encourage (or even allow) trust between the two sides.

Global negotiations on track Geneva meeting.

Klapper 11-13-13 (Bradley, Obama seeks time from Congress for Iran diplomacy, but lawmakers push
for new sanctions, http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/c00a20048d354114a36da338495b6149/USUnited-States-Iran, )
The administration sees itself on the cusp of a historic breakthrough , so much so that Obama hastily dispatched Kerry to
Switzerland last week for the highest-level nuclear negotiations to date. The talks broke down as Iran demanded formal recognition of what it says is its right to
enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, and as France sought stricter limits on Iran's ability to make nuclear fuel and on its heavy water reactor to produce
plutonium, according to diplomats. Still, officials said significant progress was made. The U.S., Britain, China, France,

Germany, Iran and Russia will send top nuclear negotiators back to Geneva next week to see whether they can push
the ball forward . And on Wednesday, Obama spoke by telephone with French President Francois Hollande. The two
countries "are in full agreement " on Iran, the White House said in a statement.

New inspections create momentum solves French fears.

Matthew 11-13-13 (Francis, Nuclear deal with Iran is on right track,
http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/nuclear-deal-with-iran-is-on-right-track-1.1254736, CMR)
Despite the French, things

are moving in the right direction on several tracks . While the diplomats were hammering away at each
chief, Yukiya Amano, won IAEA access to Iran with an
agreement that the IAEA will visit the Arak heavy-water production plant and a uranium mine at Gchine
within three months. This may help allay French fears , which would improve the atmosphere at Geneva
when the diplomats meet again in just over a week.
other over four days in Geneva, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

AT: Agenda Overload

Overload doesnt work causes backlash PC is key.
Gergen, 1/18 --- professor of public service and director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard
University's Kennedy School of Government (1/18/2013, David, CNN Wire, Obama 2.0: Smarter,
tougher -- but wiser? Factiva))

Strikingly, Obama has also been deft in the ways he has drawn upon Vice President Joe Biden. During much of the campaign, Biden appeared to be kept under
wraps. But in the transition, he has been invaluable to Obama in negotiating a deal with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the fiscal cliff and in
pulling together the gun package. Biden was also at his most eloquent at the ceremony announcing the gun measures. All of this has added up for Obama to
one of the most effective transitions in modern times. And it is paying rich dividends: A CNN poll this past week pegged his approval rating at 55%, far above
the doldrums he was in for much of the past two years. Many of his long-time supporters are rallying behind him. As the first Democrat since Franklin D.
Roosevelt to score back-to-back election victories with more than 50% of the vote, Obama is in the strongest position since early in his first year. Smarter,
tougher, bolder -- his new style is paying off politically. But in the long run, will it also pay off in better governance? Perhaps -- and
for the country's sake, let's hope so. Yet, there

are ample reasons to wonder, and worry. Ultimately, to resolve major

issues like deficits, immigration, guns and energy, the president and Congress need to find ways to work together
much better than they did in the first term. Over the past two years, Republicans were clearly more recalcitrant than Democrats, practically declaring war
on Obama, and the White House has been right to adopt a tougher approach after the elections. But a growing number of Republicans
concluded after they had their heads handed to them in November that they had to move away from
extremism toward a more center-right position, more open to working out compromises with Obama . It's not
that they suddenly wanted Obama to succeed; they didn't want their party to fail. House Speaker John Boehner led the way, offering the day after the election
to raise taxes on the wealthy and giving up two decades of GOP orthodoxy. In a similar spirit, Rubio has been developing a mainstream plan on immigration,
moving away from a ruinous GOP stance. One senses that the hope, small as it was, to take a brief timeout on hyperpartisanship in order to tackle the big
issues is now slipping away. While a majority of Americans now approve of Obama's job performance, conservatives increasingly believe

that in his new toughness, he is going overboard, trying to run over them . They don't see a president who wants to
roll up his sleeves and negotiate; they see a president who wants to barnstorm the country to beat them up. News that Obama is converting his
campaign apparatus into a nonprofit to support his second term will only deepen that sense. And it frustrates them that he is winning: At their retreat, House
Republicans learned that their disapproval has risen to 64%. Conceivably, Obama's tactics could pressure Republicans into

capitulation on several fronts. More likely, they will be spoiling for more fights . Chances for a "grand
bargain" appear to be hanging by a thread.

AT: Sanctions lifting Bad will give Iran too much $$

Lake, 11/14/13 (Eli, writer for the Daily Beast; Inside Obamas Iran Sanctions Strategy;
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/14/inside-obama-s-iran-sanctions-strategy.html)
The United States is prepared to allow Iran to recoup up to $10 billion in revenues lost to sanctions, according to a U.S.
government estimate of sanctions relief proposed this weekend at Geneva.
Three sources briefed by the Obama administration this week on the talks between Iran, the United States and five other great
powers, say that U.S. estimates on the value of special exemptions to allow Iran to sell and ship some of its oil and other
exports would result in no more than $10 billion worth of sanctions relief.
Colin Kahl, a former senior Pentagon official in Obamas first term and an expert on U.S. policy to Iran, said in testimony
before Congress Wednesday that the package being proposed to Iran was worth no more than $6 to $7 billion in sanctions
relief.
For Iran, this relatively modest sanctions reliefcompared to the losses it has suffered as a result of its isolation from the
world economymatters. A recent report from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and Roubini Global Economics
estimates Irans government has access to only $20 billion in overseas foreign reserves that it can spend with no restrictions.

AFF Non Unique Sanctions will increase now

Non-unique Obama admin failing to quell congressional Iran fears Anti Israeli vibe and lack of
specific talk details make increasing sanctions a sure thing.
Lake, 11/14/13 (Eli, writer for the Daily Beast; Inside Obamas Iran Sanctions Strategy;
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/14/inside-obama-s-iran-sanctions-strategy.html)
On Wednesday, a showdown between Congress and the administration took place at the Capital Building. In a closed session,
Secretary of State John Kerry, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman, and Undersecretary of Treasury
David Cohen spoke to members of the Senate Banking Committee and Senate leadership from both parties.
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), who is also the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, emerged from the
briefing flabbergasted that the officials refused to tell senators any details of the pending agreement. It was an emotional
appeal and I was very disappointed in the presentation. It lacked content, Corker said. If I were trying to convince somebody
of something, I would lay out details. I am stunned that in a classified setting there would be such a lack of specificity.
Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), who is preparing his own legislation to tighten sanctions on Iran, got into several heated discussions
with the officials inside the classified briefing, he said. Kirk said the Israeli government briefed him on the proposed agreement
Wednesday morning and told him the Iranian concessions would only amount to a 24-day delay in their progress towards
nuclear capabilityand in exchange, Tehran would receive billions of dollars worth of sanctions relief.
The briefing was fairly anti-Israeli. I was supposed to disbelieve everything the Israelis just told me. I dont. I think the
Israelis probably have a pretty good intelligence service, Kirk said. The administration very disappointingly said Discount
what the Israelis say. I think that was wrong as a policy matter.
Kirk said he would use every legislative avenue available, including the upcoming debate over the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA), to try to secure a vote on a new sanctions package. He reminded the officials that the last sanctions
package he sponsored with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) passed the senate by a
vote of 100-0.
Several GOP Senators compared the Obama administrations strategy towards Iran to the Clinton administrations strategy
towards North Korea, in which Sherman herself was involved. A 1994 framework agreement with Pyongyang was hailed at the
time but was later scuttled due to North Korean cheating. North Korea subsequently tested a nuclear device on three separate
occasions.
After Wendy led the effort to give North Korea nuclear reactors and food, her record on North Korea is a total failure and an
embarrassment to her service, said Kirk. Today is the day when I witnessed a future of nuclear war in the Middle East some
day that will be part of our childrens heritage. This admin, like Neville Chamberlain, is yielding a large and bloody conflict in
the Middle East involving Iranian nuclear weapons.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) also said that the North Korean example looms large as senators consider whether to pause their
sanctions push against Iran. He also said senators dont trust the administration to negotiate a good deal.
Theres a real belief among members of Congress on both sides of the aisle that the administration wants a deal too much,
Graham said. You should not begin to put any capital into the Iranian economy until they begin to dismantle the centrifuges.

Sanctions will happen Obama posturing not working.

NYT, 11/14/ 13 (Obama Calls for Patience in Iran Talks; By MARK LANDLER and DAVID E.
SANGER; Published: November 14, 2013; http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/us/politics/obamairan.html)
On Capitol Hill, aides to Republican and Democratic senators dismissed the report. It simply confirms the concerns that
senators already have: There have been no centrifuges removed, said one. Another added, Theyre closing it down in the
morning and opening it up in the afternoon.
On Wednesday, Mr. Kerry and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. met with Senate leaders, who are considering a new set of
sanctions that aim to drive Irans oil exports to zero. But there was little evidence that the senators were persuaded to delay
action.

AFF Obama no PC
Obamacare killed all Obamas PC blocking all focus on anything else in his agenda.
Foreign Policy, 11/14/13 (Red in the Face: Charting the media outrage over Obamacare; BY KALEV
LEETARU | NOVEMBER 14, 2013;
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/11/14/mapping_obamacare_outrage_media)
As front page headlines chronicle the ever-growing daily drumbeat of Obamacare woes, the saturation of domestic coverage
has been displacing a wide range of critical foreign policy developments. Syria's bloody civil war rages on, while Egypt
potentially stands on the brink of its own. The United States and Iran, meanwhile, forge historic progress towards a nuclear
agreement -- not that you'd know it from the headlines, which remain focused on lost health insurance plans, faulty computer
code, and sweetheart government contracting deals. Official confirmation of the Syrian government's destruction of its
chemical weapons production facilities barely garnered a mention, while CBS News' retraction of a 60 Minutes piece on what
went wrong in Benghazi -- one of the few retractions issued in its 45-year history -- yielded a collective yawn. Indeed, had one
woken up this morning after a year-long nap, one could be forgiven for assuming that the most pressing U.S. foreign policy
issues had magically been resolved, leaving Obamacare as the single greatest threat to domestic tranquility.
While technically a domestic policy issue, the political turmoil that has enveloped Obamacare has had a significant impact on
U.S. foreign policy -- from sparking the total shutdown of the federal government to forcing the Obama administration into
damage control and public outreach at a critical foreign policy juncture. The constant distraction created by the Obamacare
debacle, meanwhile, is having an impact of its own. The latest Gallup poll, current through Nov. 13, shows that since the
government shutdown, the president's disapproval rating has reached close to the highest levels of his tenure.
Coupled with the daily drumbeat of NSA disclosures, the Obama administration is finding itself playing near-constant defense.
This raises key questions about what the national coverage of Obamacare really looks like, how all-consuming it is, and how
the country as a whole is reacting to it. Is the cacophony of headlines foretelling ultimate healthcare doom truly reflective of a
darkening across the nation towards Obamacare? Are they really eating up political capital that the administration should be
leveraging toward other activities, including foreign policy?
Even in the increasingly online realm of the news media, there is still a fixed "news hole" that can only accommodate a small
number of stories. High profile coverage of Obamacare knocks stories about American foreign policy off the front page,
shifting the public's attention back home and decreasing the average citizen's knowledge of the latest developments abroad.
One way to visualize this phenomenon involves using big data, which paints an unusually vivid picture of the pattern and tone
of news coverage. Let's take a look at the numbers and see what we can learn about what the media picture of Obamacare
really looks like and how it has evolved.

AFF Obama no PC
Obama has no PC now Obamacare is taking over the news leading to severs lack of PC on any
foreign policy issues.
Foreign Policy, 11/14/13 (Red in the Face: Charting the media outrage over Obamacare; BY KALEV
LEETARU | NOVEMBER 14, 2013;
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/11/14/mapping_obamacare_outrage_media)
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
So what does this all mean and what are the policy takeaways? One might reasonably argue that none of the results here are
altogether surprising -- it doesn't require data mining to figure out that media coverage of Obamacare has become deeply
negative over the past year or that it is consuming a large fraction of the daily headlines. Yet, what we are able to see in the
crisp mathematical precision of the computerized graphs and maps above is just how vast and intense the negative coverage
really is. As a result, we can move beyond anecdotes like "It's getting a lot of coverage" to precise statements like "More than
80 percent of all television news shows are talking about it."
We can also gaze through the eyes of the news media and literally map the deep pessimism towards the law as it spreads across
the nation. This by itself is a key finding: just how much the media has been covering Obamacare and, in particular, how key
the GOP's tying of Obamacare to the government shutdown was in bringing it to the forefront. Indeed, while Republicans may
have lost in their attempt to defund Obamacare through their shutdown showdown, they succeeded in making it a national news
item, and thus setting the stage for the media to eagerly pounce on the first hints of a problem with the new website.
A month after the government shutdown, more than 60 percent of American television news programming still discusses
Obamacare, while a vast array of critical foreign policy issues struggle for coverage amongst this deluge. Of course, this is
simply what the news media does -- across the world, it reports on the freshest stories that are likely to win the most readers.
Even with the potentially infinite virtual space of the online world, there is still a fixed amount of real estate on the front page,
fixed number of reporters, and a fixed amount of time in the day to cover all the stories competing for attention. Still, the sheer
magnitude of the shift inwards caused by the Obamacare debacle and the attendant loss of political capital and public approval
have real implications for the administration's flexibility in tackling future foreign policy issues.
For the first time, we can use sophisticated computer algorithms to transform the daily heartbeat of the news media into a
visual window onto the national consciousness. Through the powerful lens of big data we now have a telescope to peer not at
the heavens above, but at ourselves here on Earth -- revealing a frightening collection of stormclouds that have thrown a
shadow over American foreign policy.

AFF Turn Removing sanctions = Iran econ boost

Turn Removing sanctions will allow green to overtake fear in businesses deal with Iran will
crazy boost Iran economy.
Lake, 11/14/13 (Eli, writer for the Daily Beast; Inside Obamas Iran Sanctions Strategy;
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/14/inside-obama-s-iran-sanctions-strategy.html)
Nonetheless, the Israelis and other critics of the proposed sanctions relief say there is a risk that any
loosening of pressure on Iran before it begins dismantling its nuclear program could encourage countries,
banks, and other institutions to skirt existing sanctions and offer Iran's isolated and pressured economy a
life line.
Business with Iran is driven by greed and fear, said Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the
Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a think tank that has supported escalating sanctions on Iran. In
an environment of escalating sanctions where the U.S. surrounds Iran with an economic minefield, fear
overrides greed. When sanctions are being de-escalated, as they are today at the request of the
administration, greed will override fear.

AFF Sanctions will not happen until after talks anyway

Sanctions bill will come up for vote after the next round of talks.
NYT, 11/14/ 13 (Obama Calls for Patience in Iran Talks; By MARK LANDLER and DAVID E.
SANGER; Published: November 14, 2013; http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/15/us/politics/obamairan.html)
Aides said Republican senators were likely to attach the sanctions bill as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization
Act, which funds the military. But with Thanksgiving break looming, they said, the Senate was unlikely to vote on it before the
next round of talks, which begin on Thursday.